International Relations

Studying International Relations, I have to write a lot of essays on does realism explain this, is neoliberalism made redundant because of that, etc.

However, it seems to me that there is no rule that could be said to apply to the international system, making it work a certain way at any point in time. All the theories were valid at some point in time. Realism gives as accurate account of the sitaution leading up to the Second World War. Liberalism offers a more realistic picture of the IR scene nowadays.

I can't pick one single theory and say that its the best, but most people do. The poll is for if you believe any one theory had applied throughout history, and not just today.

Now, discuss. :whip:

Realism: States are the only kind of international actor, and act sovereignly on the international scene. They act only to serve their own interests, and believe that any gains they make only acquire meaning relative to those of other states. One's security is another's insecurity, and a balance of power is the best way to maintain peace.
Neorealism: Similar to realism, however acknowledged that states are not the only actors, as economic actors such as multinational coporations also exist, albeit as inferior to states with hard, military power.
English School: Sticks to the basic realist principles that states are the only actors and that they wish to serve their own ends, but also argues that the international scene is not so anarchic as realists suggest. This school of thought believes that while states are selfish actors, they can exist peacefully through means such as diplomacy, internatinal law, and morality, and not just a balance of power.
Liberalism: This is the idealist school of thought, which argues that states can live in harmony if they are brought together by international organisations, and by changes within the states themselves. For example Fukuyama and his belief that liberal democracy is the high point in a state's development, or democratic peace theory (democracies do not go to war).
Neoliberalism: States seek absolute rather than relative gains, and so are brought together through international organisations, and live together peacefully in order to achieve them. For example, embraces the idea of 'complex interdependence', that economic actors cross state borders and give all states a common interest which can only be pursued through consensus.
Marxism: Argues that the whole international system is one based around capital accumulation, serving only certain classes at any given time. Also, Wallerstein's 'world systems theory' argues that resources go from the periphery to the core (with a semi-periphery inbetween), with this first being achieved through colonialism, and now dependence.
Other: Feminist theory, normative theory, whatever.

I have noted a tendency for those from the UK and those of us here on the sunny side of the Atlantic to be thoroughly divided by our common language. As a "primer" for this poll, would you be so kind as to provide a 1-2 sentence gloss of these categories. Such an operational definition will get you more clarity.

I think it's perfectly fine to have sex with foreign girls, wait, this is about politics, nm....

I studied International Relations at Uni, a fine subject.

I subscribe pretty much to the Liberalist - Idealist - way of thinking, mainly because I think Realism is a compelte pile of donkey crap.

There are parts of the idealist doctrine which I don't like, yet the basic concept is much closer to my view of International Relations.

For those who want a brief - yet ultimately unfulfilling - explanation of the terms ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations

Thanks for the link. You're right, a waste of time reading it.

To ascribe one way to how all countries view the world throughout the span of history is pointless and wildely inaccurate: some view wars as bad, others actively want them, others want them if the benefits outweigh the risks - and this is only one tiny factor on how internatinal relations are formed.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Thanks for the link. You're right, a waste of time reading it.

To ascribe one way to how all countries view the world throughout the span of history is pointless and wildely inaccurate: some view wars as bad, others actively want them, others want them if the benefits outweigh the risks - and this is only one tiny factor on how internatinal relations are formed.

~:smoking:

---

The theories do very much work on basic principles and the whole global infrastructure, they are complex and do require detailed studying - hence the Uni degree for it - but believe it or not, they are pretty good theories which many people subscribe to. To say these theories make no sense, would be like saying Socialism or Conservatism, in principle will never work because individual countries are different and the history of nations has been so different, etc.

Realism is old fashioned, I would be closest to the neo-realism of Waltz probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I have noted a tendency for those from the UK and those of us here on the sunny side of the Atlantic to be thoroughly divided by our common language. As a "primer" for this poll, would you be so kind as to provide a 1-2 sentence gloss of these categories. Such an operational definition will get you more clarity.

---

good idea, give me an explanation of these hi-fallutin' ideas and i'll give you a response.

Sorry, I'll try and give an overview of what I mean by each...

Realism: States are the only kind of international actor, and act sovereignly on the international scene. They act only to serve their own interests, and believe that any gains they make only acquire meaning relative to those of other states. One's security is another's insecurity, and a balance of power is the best way to maintain peace.
Neorealism: Similar to realism, however acknowledged that states are not the only actors, as economic actors such as multinational coporations also exist, albeit as inferior to states with hard, military power.
English School: Sticks to the basic realist principles that states are the only actors and that they wish to serve their own ends, but also argues that the international scene is not so anarchic as realists suggest. This school of thought believes that while states are selfish actors, they can exist peacefully through means such as diplomacy, internatinal law, and morality, and not just a balance of power.
Liberalism: This is the idealist school of thought, which argues that states can live in harmony if they are brought together by international organisations, and by changes within the states themselves. For example Fukuyama and his belief that liberal democracy is the high point in a state's development, or democratic peace theory (democracies do not go to war).
Neoliberalism: States seek absolute rather than relative gains, and so are brought together through international organisations, and live together peacefully in order to achieve them. For example, embraces the idea of 'complex interdependence', that economic actors cross state borders and give all states a common interest which can only be pursued through consensus.
Marxism: Argues that the whole international system is one based around capital accumulation, serving only certain classes at any given time. Also, Wallerstein's 'world systems theory' argues that resources go from the periphery to the core (with a semi-periphery inbetween), with this first being achieved through colonialism, and now dependence.
Other: Feminist theory, normative theory, whatever.

English School it is then.

It sounds like the English School would fit my beliefs.

sign me up for neo-realism.

p.s. why didn't you add Transnational progressivism, i could do with an opportunity to laugh at those willing to expose themselves as slow of wit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

English School: Sticks to the basic realist principles that states are the only actors and that they wish to serve their own ends, but also argues that the international scene is not so anarchic as realists suggest. This school of thought believes that while states are selfish actors, they can exist peacefully through means such as diplomacy, internatinal law, and morality, and not just a balance of power.
[...]
Marxism: Argues that the whole international system is one based around capital accumulation, serving only certain classes at any given time. Also, Wallerstein's 'world systems theory' argues that resources go from the periphery to the core (with a semi-periphery inbetween), with this first being achieved through colonialism, and now dependence.

---

A combination of these two sounds close to about what I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

A combination of these two sounds close to about what I believe.

---

Same here. :skull:

For nowadays/recent decades anyway. Even realism can be appropriate at times, for example WWII.

How nice. I also study International Relations. A good thing was that our teacher did his very best to neutrally explain and outline every school of thought and its proponents, without trying to take sides (Other than bashing Bush, but that everyone does).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Same here. :skull:

For nowadays/recent decades anyway. Even realism can be appropriate at times, for example WWII.

---

I believe it was a response to WW2, an attack on liberalism.

Marxism/Neo-Marxism, although some sympathy for Neo-Realism/ English School (although I find the 2 overlap quite a lot)

:2thumbsup:

English FTW!

I find my views somewhere between English School Realism and Neoliberalism. I hold to the absolute sovereignty and right of individual states to act in their own best interest. I also hold that state actors can be incredibly short-sighted, even about their own best interests, and international organizations provide perspective for state actors not only on how their interests align within the larger framework of other actors on the global stage, but also enlighten them about the merit of their own aims.

We're speaking theoretically and idealistically of course. Practically speaking, I believe the UN has become so corrupted and so utterly ineffectual, it is worse than useless, it actually retards development.

From the list, my choice is 'Liberalism'. I voted 'other'. This other option is a Revolutionist / Kantian theory of International relations.

This is not a descriptive, but a normative preference. That is, it doesn't describe what is, but what ought to be.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wiki:

Immanuel Kant favoured a classical liberal approach to political philosophy.[1] In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795) Kant listed several conditions that he thought necessary for ending wars and creating a lasting peace. They included a world of constitutional republics.[2] This was the first version of the democratic peace theory. Critics of the European Union assert that the Union's relative inability to establish itself as an influential external policy entity in the international level stems from the fact that the EU's institutions function on Kantian premises and are therefore ill-equipped to face the more primitive, non-Kantian world outside.

He opposed "democracy", which, in that era, meant direct democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, "…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all", who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom."[3]

A distinctive feature of Kant's political philosophy is his conviction that the university should be a model of creative conflict: the philosopher's role within the university should be to "police" the higher faculties (which in his day were theology, law and medicine), making sure their teaching conforms to the principles of reason; likewise, the goal of perpetual peace in society can be achieved only when the rulers consult with philosophers on a regular basis

Liberalism is also called by some as "Idealism", so yeah, you're a Liberalist.

I'd say I'm closest to neo-liberal.

All of them are partly-true, and mostly wrong.

Trying to explain social behaviors through set-in-the-stone theories is one of the biggest mistakes of modernity.

But trying to explain social behaviours (and international relations) without them is impossible. Theories are not neccessarily supposed to be correct, but provide useful perspectives of understanding and resolving problems

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

All of them are partly-true, and mostly wrong.

Trying to explain social behaviors through set-in-the-stone theories is one of the biggest mistakes of modernity.

---

As if its the fault of modernity...

Ever since the alphabet, in gact ever since ever since, man has had to, in order to survive, define things accoring to how they fit within certain systems of classification. Think, the triangle goes into the triangle shaped hole, that kind of thing. But as you said they often do not fit so well.